NUS warns of complaints rise

July 20, 2001

Estimates of a near £1 million price tag for a university ombudsman to deal with student complaints could be a gross under-estimation, student leaders warned this week.

A consultation paper on the independent review of student complaints, published this week, puts the cost of such a system at about £830,000, based on five complaints costing an average of £1,000 each, per higher education institution each year.

But the National Union of Students said that the estimate was optimistic and that complaints would be at least double that number.

Brooks Duke, NUS vice-president (education), said: "The present visitor system... makes students reluctant to pursue their cases. But if students see that there is a fair and unbiased structure in place, the floodgates will open and more people will complain."

The paper, published by Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals, proposes that standard complaint forms are posted on the ombudsman website as well as being available by post. Failure to use a form would not, however, rule out the investigation of a complaint.

It also proposes that the Department for Education and Skills provides money to set up the independent-review office.

There are concerns that continued government funding would amount to imposition of a monitoring scheme, while funding from the sector raises questions of independence.

Higher education institutions are being asked for their views on four areas of the proposed scheme: what sort of complaints should be referred for review; under what circumstances should complaints be referred; what weight should the independent reviewer's decisions carry; and administrative arrangements and financing of an independent reviewer.

Universities are also being asked what powers an independent reviewer should have, including whether his or her decision should be for advice only or whether decisions should be binding.

The consultation contains questions about the range of decisions an independent reviewer should be able to make. These include ruling or recommending that no prima facie case has been established, or that the complaint was vexatious or frivolous. Another possible decision could be that an institution's internal procedures had been breached.

It has been suggested that the independent reviewer could have the power to judge if the decision reached by an institution was reasonable or unreasonable, even if all internal procedures were followed properly.

The consultation ends on October 19.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns